Opinion
Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion

McManus: Obama's Gitmo woes

President Obama sounded genuinely outraged last week when he talked about the Kafkaesque situation at the Guantanamo prison camp, where the United States has been holding 166 men without trial for terms that are, at this point, officially endless.

"It's not sustainable," the president thundered. "I mean, the notion that we're going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no man's land in perpetuity?"

But at least some of Obama's anger should be directed at himself, because his own silence and passivity on Guantanamo are part of the problem.

EDITORIAL: Erasing the stain of Guantanamo

The president campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to close the camp; once in office, he signed an order to move the prisoners to the United States within a year.

Since then, however, in the face of congressional opposition and political obstacles, he has backed away.

Only now, with a hunger strike among some 100 of the camp's 166 detainees entering its fourth month, does the president seem to have reengaged.

Obama, of course, blames Congress for making it impossible for him to close Guantanamo. But as with most ugly messes in Washington, there's plenty of blame to go around.

It's true that in 2010, Congress blocked the president's proposal to close the camp and move its inmates to an unused "supermax" prison in Illinois that could have housed them securely (and more cheaply).

But that's only part of the story. Amazingly, 86 detainees — more than half of those still at Guantanamo — were cleared for release or transfer to other countries more than three years ago. Twenty-eight of those were initially OKd for transfer by the George W. Bush administration in 2007. But all are still in Guantanamo.

Part of the problem, at least initially, was that the detainees' home countries didn't all want them back. But a State Department negotiator, Daniel Fried, went to work on that problem and solved most of it. Yemen has agreed to take its 56 of the 86 cleared detainees; Afghanistan has asked for 17 detainees back; even Britain has requested the release of a Saudi citizen whose wife and children are Londoners.

The Obama administration created another part of the problem itself. In 2010, after Al Qaeda put a Nigerian terrorist with a bomb in his underwear aboard a flight to Detroit, the administration suspended all detainee transfers to Yemen, where the plot had been hatched. Since then, Yemen has become more stable and the United States has worked with its government to build a rehabilitation facility for returning detainees, but officials say it isn't ready yet.

Congress weighed in too. Alarmed by reports that some released detainees had rejoined Al Qaeda or the Taliban, members of Congress demanded a formal assurance from the secretary of Defense that no future parolee would return to the battlefield.

After the administration pointed out that no one could absolutely guarantee that returning detainees would lead virtuous lives — most of them were anti-American extremists when they were apprehended, and their time in Guantanamo is unlikely to have made them friendlier — Congress provided some wiggle room.

Under current law, a detainee can be transferred home if the secretary of Defense, the secretary of State and the director of national intelligence all affirm that the country he's heading for is taking steps to "substantially mitigate" any danger to the United States.

But that still requires Obama and his aides to take a big political risk every time they decide to release a detainee — and an opportunity for opponents to pounce the next time a Guantanamo alumnus turns out to be a recidivist, as some inevitably will.

As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last week, making no distinction between the most dangerous detainees and the least: "They're individuals hell-bent on our destruction and destroying our way of life."

Not surprisingly, Obama hasn't been quick to embrace those risks. But his understandable caution is another reason the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer are still in limbo — and, in many cases, on a hunger strike.

There are steps Obama can take. He can appoint a successor to Fried, whose job has been empty since last year, and resume finding new homes for released detainees. Even better, he could appoint a high-level deputy for Guantanamo — Vice President Joe Biden, say, or retiring FBI Director Robert Mueller or even former CIA Director David H. Petraeus — to negotiate a solution with Congress, which has been more trouble than most foreign governments.

And he can begin sending detainees to Yemen and Afghanistan, both of which say they are ready to receive them.

None of those steps alone will result in the closure of Guantanamo. Obama has endorsed indefinite detention for terrorist suspects, at least as long as the war with Al Qaeda persists. Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, the head of Southern Command, says he's already thinking about upgrading medical facilities to take care of the detainees as they age.

But reducing Guantanamo's population would solve a big chunk of what has become an apparently insoluble problem. Resuming the transfers, especially for those who have already been offered a ticket out, would offer remaining detainees at least a shred of hope.

Obama and his aides say they are looking at all those remedies now. It's a shame it took a hunger strike to remind the president of his own convictions.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Follow Doyle McManus on Twitter @DoyleMcManus

 

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
  • An end to shackling prisoners in federal court

    An end to shackling prisoners in federal court

    It's obvious that placing a criminal defendant in handcuffs and leg shackles runs the risk of prejudicing a jury. But even when only a judge is present, a policy of shackling a defendant violates his dignity, mocks the presumption of innocence and offends what the Supreme Court has called the "dignity...

  • Joseph Stiglitz explains why the Fed shouldn't raise interest rates

    Joseph Stiglitz explains why the Fed shouldn't raise interest rates

    As central bank governors, Federal Reserve officials, economists and reporters convene for the annual economic policy retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyo., this weekend, the question on everyone's mind is: Will the Fed raise interest rates come September?

  • Using cap-and-trade money for road repair doesn't pass muster

    Using cap-and-trade money for road repair doesn't pass muster

    To many California Republicans, it looks like a perfect match. On the one hand, the state can no longer ignore the deferred maintenance of its roads and bridges, not to mention the need for new ones in some areas. On the other, the state has a big pot of money that more than doubled in size to...

  • Ohio's nonsensical attack on abortion rights

    Ohio's nonsensical attack on abortion rights

    A bill in the Ohio Legislature that would ban a woman from having an abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome is blatantly unconstitutional and probably unenforceable.

  • Face it, most millennial dads are hypocrites

    Face it, most millennial dads are hypocrites

    Around the time my firstborn was learning to walk, my wife and I tried a tag-team approach to parenting. I'd take most of the early morning shifts and then head to the office. Most evenings, no matter what was happening at work, I'd log back in at home, and my wife would pursue her career as a...

  • Why L.A.'s crime rise is no surprise

    Why L.A.'s crime rise is no surprise

    After more than a decade of decline, violent crime in Los Angeles rose more than 20% during the first half of 2015, with felony assaults up 26% and robberies up 19%. Why, no one yet definitively knows. But there's plenty of speculation.

Loading
87°